Sigma 150-600 Sport

[Kayaker72]

I guess this has been announced in Poland....

http://sigma-rumors.com/2014/09/sigma-150-600mm-f5-6-3-dg-os-hsm-sports-additional-details/

Monster of a lens. I'll be very interested in a side by side with the Tamron....

[Dave Throgmartin]

IMHO way too heavy for the average Joe buying a wild life setup.

Dave

[Kayaker72]

Being sharp at 600 mm, if it tests out, would allow forgiveness of many sins. :)

[Dave Throgmartin]

Being sharp at 600 mm, if it tests out, would allow forgiveness of many sins. :)

I think you may be right, but it depends on the target. Who is the target to buy a $2,000 100 oz 150-600mm zoom lens? Are they going for the 100-400 crowd for a few hundred dollars more? The serious wild life guys put a small fortune into buying the superteles. I doubt they'd be interested in the Sigma.

Personally, $2,000 for a camera lens is too rich for my blood and 100 oz too heavy to hand hold for very long at all. If I were to buy a long lens I'd go for the Tamron. There's a guy named Imagemaster who's been posting some really nice images with the Tamron.


That said, the other Art lenses Sigma has come out are very interesting. The 35mm is great, I've rented that one and really liked it. I haven't used the 24-105, but it looks fantastic as well.

Dave

[Busted Knuckles]

I have the "Tamzooka" and upto 400 I am extremely pleased the sharpness, contrast etc. Above 450 it gets a wee bit soft - not much but when the frames are side by side it is noticeable.

It is not exactly a joy to hand hold. The collar foot makes it easy to carry (rotate to the top/side and off we go - depends on how you want to carry it and try :) to swing it into action LOL HA)

Adding another two pounds is really pushing the hand hold idea for very long. Lots of breaks in the action.

Having said all of this - I am 5x pleased w/ the 50 1.4 art - Wow what a beast in all regards. If they have pulled off something even vaguely close IQ wise these will be flying off the shelves. (then again any lens with those specs would).

Just my 2 pennies

[Kayaker72]

Who is the target to buy a $2,000 100 oz 150-600mm zoom lens?

ummm...if the optics and AF are good enough, me.

:D:cool:;)

Seriously, look at the MTF charts... (http://sigma-rumors.com/2014/09/sigma-150-600mm-f5-6-3-dg-os-hsm-sports-additional-details/)

If these are accurate, they are better at 600 mm than the 50A. (http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/50mm-f14-dg-hsm-a)

AF will be a big question mark. And I won't believe anything until I see some test results. But, this could be an excellent optic at 600 mm for $2k. If so I could easily be the market.

[Dave Throgmartin]

ummm...if the optics and AF are good enough, me.

:D:cool:;)

Seriously, look at the MTF charts... (http://sigma-rumors.com/2014/09/sigma-150-600mm-f5-6-3-dg-os-hsm-sports-additional-details/)

If these are accurate, they are better at 600 mm than the 50A. (http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/50mm-f14-dg-hsm-a)

AF will be a big question mark. And I won't believe anything until I see some test results. But, this could be an excellent optic at 600 mm for $2k. If so I could easily be the market.

Cool, buy a good tripod and head if you don't already have them :) Or invest in heavy weights to get ready! LOL

Dave

[neuroanatomist]

At 3 lbs lighter than my 600/4L IS II, it's not that heavy... :p

[Kayaker72]

At 3 lbs lighter than my 600/4L IS II, it's not that heavy... :p

Exactly, at 100 oz it is actually less than the 500 f/4 II, 600 f/4 II, and Sigma 120-300 f/2.8. It is about the same as the 300 f/2.8 plus 2x TC. Then you have another cluster in weights from 55-67 oz with the 100-400L plus TC, 400 f/5.6 plus TC, or the Tamron 150-600.

If the optics and AF are even close to the other lenses in this weight class, this is a heckuva lens. I would definitely consider it. Along with my budget and other options.

[Haydn1971]

I think you may be right, but it depends on the target. Who is the target to buy a $2,000 100 oz 150-600mm zoom lens? Are they going for the 100-400 crowd for a few hundred dollars more? The serious wild life guys put a small fortune into buying the superteles. I doubt they'd be interested in the Sigma.

The Canon 100-400L is such an old lens now, the pumper isn't for me and to be fair, beyond 300mm isn't something I want to carry when I'm walking, so I got myself a modern 70-300L with great optics and a step up in AF from my previous 70-300 non-L

However, I want more for occasional use, for aircraft, shipping, moon pics, a bit of wildlife and odd bit of freelancing I do for MI5 ;-) oops, did I say that out loud ! I want more than 300mm on my full frame, but don't really want to spend "big money". The 100-400mm or 400mm on a crop is a bit of a step up, but then I add a 1.4x or 2.0x and AF doesn't work, or I'd need to buy a 7DII and suffer just the 1.4x working - giving me a max 896mm (FF equiv) with AF or I could drop less money on a Sigma 150-600mm which from all accounts autofocuses up to f8 with extenders, that would give me 840mm on FF with AF (wait for the TDP review to be bunk that one) - I'm interested for sure, especially at say £1500-1800 that it may be in the UK, compared to 7DII with 400mm Canon lens at about about £2000

I don't really want to own two DSLR's at this time, the 6D plus EOS-M works for me now, a lottery win or promotion to Associate Director salary might change that, but both seem unlikely !

[HDNitehawk]

If the optics and AF are even close to the other lenses in this weight class, this is a heckuva lens. I would definitely consider it. Along with my budget and other options.

By the charts it will not be close to the 300mm F/2.8 II with a 2x at 600mm.
The 300mm would be the better choice but the $4600 savings could take you on several cool trips with a cheaper lens.

[Kayaker72]

By the charts it will not be close to the 300mm F/2.8 II with a 2x at 600mm.
The 300mm would be the better choice but the $4600 savings could take you on several cool trips with a cheaper lens.

Of course, that assumes that I have the extra $4,600 :rolleyes:;) I doubt I do this year.

I am not even sure if super telephoto is where I am going to invest next. The 100-400L gets the job done, but I use it a lot less now that I mostly travel with the 70-200 II plus 2x TC. So, something different like the Tamron or this new Sigma, or eventually a Big White, would be very tempting.

Regarding its optics, all we have is the MTF chart. While, theoretically, these should be comparable, I have heard they do vary between manufacturers. So what I had done is compare the 150-600 MFT chart to the 120-300 f/2.8 sport. Their lines at 600 mm f/8 (150-600) and 300 mm f/8 (120-300) are comparable (slight edge to the 120-300). So then I looked at Bryan's test charts of the 120-300 @ 300 f/8 and was impressed. Here is a chart comparing (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=844&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=4&LensComp=739&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=4)the 120-300 @ 300 f/8 (assuming the 600 is similar) to the EF 300 f/2.8 +2xTC. I do give the edge to the Canon set up, but I am impressed by both. Then, compare it (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=844&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=4&LensComp=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=10&APIComp=0) to the 100-400L +1.4xTC or even at the native at 400 mm (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=844&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=4&LensComp=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=2). And finally the Tamron (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=844&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=4&LensComp=929&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2). Of course, the EF 600 f/4 II is better (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=844&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=4&LensComp=748&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3)and has the aperture advantage.

So, if my assumption that the IQ of these two Sigma lenses is valid, the 150-600S may be good enough for a hacker photographer like myself. I am also thinking Sigma knows that it's lens is $1k better than the Tamron, otherwise it would have priced the 150-600S lower. So, as I mentioned before, I am very interested in the reviews, in particular of IQ and AF.

[Kayaker72]

Available for pre-order.... (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1082152-REG/sigma_150_600mm_f_5_6_3_dg_os.html)

[Kayaker72]

For those interested, a few photos have started showing up on Flickr (https://www.flickr.com/photos/sigmadeutschland/sets/72157648178227275/).

Personally, I am torn on this lens. It fits a hole I have in my kit (>400 mm), and it fits the budget I expect to have in a few months. It is big...and heavy, but not necessarily to the point where I think either would inhibit me. Ultimately, other, more expensive lenses are likely what I want to end up with. But my 100-400L is getting very little use since I added the 70-200 II plus 2x TC to my kit. And this would be a nice complement. Of course, all this is assuming that it is better than the Tamron and the 100-400L plus 1.4xTC.

[Busted Knuckles]

I wouldn't be surprised that it takes the Tamron on the long end by a noticeable difference in a side by side. No doubt the Tamzooka is a little soft on the long end.

[Kayaker72]

That is one of the things I am expecting as well. One thing I am waiting for is to see where the aperture changes. With that large front element how long do they keep it at f/5.6?

[Falstaff]

I had to order this lens. I'm going on safari next July in Tanzania and need something with better reach than my wonderful Canon 70-300 L. Close up shots of animals are my preferred subject. The size and weight of this lens will be a bit of an issue, but I plan on lifting weights to get ready for it.

[Kayaker72]

Just saw this review (https://translate.google.fr/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=fr&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fmworkz.net%2F2014%2F10%2F08%2Fhands-on-sigma-150-600mm-f5-63-dg-os-hsm-s%2F&edit-text=). If this guy has one, I am hoping that Bryan does too. :)

A number of the photos are posted here (https://www.flickr.com/photos/mworkznet/sets/72157648716599976).

[Falstaff]

Over on the Sigma Rumors site they're reporting that someone received a message from Sigma stating that due to a higher number of preorders, this lens will be in short supply for the near future.

I too, hope Bryan can get one soon. At $2000.00, it sits right at the very top of my budget for a super zoom. I never thought I'd be able to afford a lens this size. Hopefully it'll fit in a Think Tank Glass Taxi with a 7DMII attached.

[Kayaker72]

For those keeping track, Sigma rumors has a nice page (http://sigma-rumors.com/2014/10/sigma-150-600mm-f5-6-3-dg-os-hsm-sports-reviews-sample-images/) going with links to reviews as they come in. There were some good links recently to hands on previews from popphoto (http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2014/10/first-impressions-sigma-150-600mm-f5-63-dg-os-hsm-telephoto-zoom-lens) and image resource (http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/10/24/sigma-150-600mm-sport-hands-on-preview-of-sigmas-latest-massive-sigmonster). But I found this link to a site comparing an old Nikon 600 f/5.6 (http://lcap.tistory.com/entry/Sigma-150600mm-f563-S-vs-Nikkor-600mm-f56-ED) lens interesting.

[DavidEccleston]

I look a peek at that page, and I'm disappointed. Not in the lens... in the reviewers. Portraits, flowers, sideways action... nothing that would test the sport focus performance... one of the main reasons to look at this lens, I would expect. Sure, show the sharpness on a static subject compared to something else, but, please, test a sports lens in a sports situation!

Of the 60 images or so, I think there was maybe 2 of an airplane not going sideways, and maybe 2 birds not standing still or going sideways. I didn't check the few sites that were listed as only showing downsized images... perhaps they were better, subject wise.

[Anthony M]

From what I've seen these lenses usually have to make their way into the hands of the public to start to see things like BIF shots or motorcycle races. Even the typical lens review sites (Bryan is an exception) have shots of statues, building facades and outdoor cafes.

I'm really interested in the Sport, but even more interested in the Contemporary. If the C does weigh less (a lot less), and is optically close with decent AF performance it's a cinch. I find it odd though that Sigma doesn't know the physical specs of the C lens, you would think of all things that would be pretty much written in stone at this point? Anyway, I don't tend to shoot fast moving objects, so the C could be my cup of tea. Of course, it could be that once I have a lens like this I might change my mind! I've never used anything like this so I'm not sure just what will happen. I'll certainly be going to Elkhorn slough - a nearby and well known sanctuary for birds and wildlife. While I like the (assumed) cost savings of the C, the S really isn't that much more for its potential. Anyway, I have a Tokina 500mm reflex that I never really used for my Nikon DSLR's, so this is really going to be a new thing for me.

Sadly, my Tamron 150-600 arrives tomorrow!
Did you ever think you'd hear somebody say that? :confused: I was going to cancel my order when the Sigmas were announced, by I got distracted and after almost 3 months, all of a sudden I got my congratulations email from B&H! Although I'll test it out, I'm 99% sure I'm going to send it back. Even if the AF and IQ performance were identical, the advantages the Sigmas have (sealing, optic coatings, USB dock, new TC's...) outweigh the Tamron considerably IMHO. Plus, I've had fantastic luck with my Sigmas and love them all, and Tamron - not so much.

Anyway, I may be kicking myself for letting go of a bird in the hand for something unknown moving around in the bush. And of course, I might not have the Sigma until this summer if I'm lucky!

[Kayaker72]

On my phone but numbers are in at
http://www.optyczne.pl/337.4-Test_obiektywu-Sigma_S_150-600_mm_f_5-6.3_DG_OS_HSM_Rozdzielczość_obrazu.html

Not yet up in English, but the charts are the same.

EDIT: A link to the English version (http://www.lenstip.com/417.4-Lens_review-Sigma_S_150-600_mm_f_5-6.3_DG_OS_HSM_Image_resolution.html).

Quick summary: sharper @ 600 mm than the 100-400L @ 400, 70-300L @300, or Tamron 150-600 @ 600. But not so much sharper that lenstip wouldn't consider the size, weight and cost difference. No observed AF issues.

[Falstaff]

Anyone care to speculate if this lens mounted on a Canon 7D with battery grip would fit nicely into something like a Glass Taxi from Think Tank?

[Kayaker72]

Anyone care to speculate if this lens mounted on a Canon 7D with battery grip would fit nicely into something like a Glass Taxi from Think Tank?

I would not expect a problem...but I'll be able to speak with more evidence in a few days. I had pre-ordered the 150-600S on the day it was announced. Mostly to test it out. I just got an email, it is on its way.

Of course, just in the nick of time. There is a trip I want more reach for coming up in early December. I had decided that if it hadn't shipped by this weekend that I would cancel the pre-order and wait for reviews.

I am actually excited about this beast. We'll see. But, of course, since the pre-order things have changed a bit with the release of the 100-400 L II.

[Falstaff]

I would not expect a problem...but I'll be able to speak with more evidence in a few days. I had pre-ordered the 150-600S on the day it was announced. Mostly to test it out. I just got an email, it is on its way.

Of course, just in the nick of time. There is a trip I want more reach for coming up in early December. I had decided that if it hadn't shipped by this weekend that I would cancel the pre-order and wait for reviews.

I am actually excited about this beast. We'll see. But, of course, since the pre-order things have changed a bit with the release of the 100-400 L II.

I hope you like the lens. I'm not sure when my preorder will show up. Being in Canada, I'm sure we received even less than the U.S. has if the reports are true. But to prepare for it, I've upped the weight limit for my arm and back excersises.

[Kayaker72]

It is big. No doubt. But initial impressions are good. AF was faster than expected with no issues. I'll try to have some images up tomorrow. Need some better subjects. That may have to wait until the weekend.

[Falstaff]

It is big. No doubt. But initial impressions are good. AF was faster than expected with no issues. I'll try to have some images up tomorrow. Need some better subjects. That may have to wait until the weekend.
I'm happy you got it. When you have the time, can you let me know the diameter of the lens hood? I imagine its close to 6 inches.

[Kayaker72]

I'm happy you got it. When you have the time, can you let me know the diameter of the lens hood? I imagine its close to 6 inches.

Yep. 5 1/4" at its widest. Not including the screw that protrudes out.

[Falstaff]

Yep. 5 1/4" at its widest. Not including the screw that protrudes out.
Thanks! I'm considering bag options because what I have wasn't designed to carry such a monster.

[Kayaker72]

A few comparison shots. I haven't really taken the time to AFMA the 150-600S yet, but it seems to be doing ok.

~100% crops (@400mm) of my neighbor's mailbox about 40-50 yds away.

Canon 5DIII

150-600S @ 600 mm, 1/640, f/6.3, ISO 640
2318

150-600S @ 401 mm 1/640, f/6.3, ISO 800

2319

Canon 100-400L Mk I. @400mm, 1/640, f/6.3, ISO 640...this was taken ~20 min after the others. The first set were so bad, I wanted to retest.

2321

[DavidEccleston]

Judging fine detail from the cracks (one at the end of the horizontal bit, one through the middle of the wood grain circle under the box, and one down the middle of the vertical bar)... they're all a bit more visible in the 100-400 shots, so I'd say the 150-600S shows a bit more softness at the pixel level than the 100-400, but it's not bad.

If you need the extra reach, it looks like a decent option... assuming it can focus (one shot AND servo).

[Kayaker72]

Thanks Dave. I was actually thinking the opposite. It isn't by much, which has definitely caught my attention. But I was favoring the images coming off the Sigma. But my opinion may be a bit skewed as I am already seeing a huge difference in AF. I don't want to jump to any premature conclusions, but in my brief (30 min) shoot yesterday my keeper rate with the Sigma is much higher than the 100-400L. I'll see if it holds up, but even with the mailbox above, I ended up rejecting my first set of shots (it is actually the "attached thumbnail" image) with the 100-400L. I started the post and decided to retake the shot.
I also shot birds near a feeder I have up (below). Again, the Sigma was pretty much in focus (I haven't AMFA'd it yet) with each shot. The 100-400L I was at ~30% keeper rate.

So, my likely premature, but first impressions:

IQ just a bit better than the 100-400L. Definitely in the same league. Sharpest in the center, fall off in IQ going to frame edges. I need to shoot at f/8-f/11 to see how that holds up in that range.
AF potentially much better/more consistent than the 100-400L.
Well built. Actually, there are armored tanks that aren't as well built.
Not sure it is the lens for me as it is big and heavy. The 100-400L feels like a toy lens after holding the Sigma. All shots were hand held, so it is absolutely hand holdable. But I suspect this lens may be better suited for those planning to shoot from supports.


None of these shots are meant to be artistic. But birds on my shed roof (near my feeder) yesterday.

Sigma 150-600 @ 600mm: 1/1000, f/6.3, ISO 1600 (~100% crop)

2322


100-400L @ 400mm: 1/1000, f/6.3, ISO 1600

2323

Getting back to the AF...above was my best shot with the 100-400L. Below, same settings, is the best of a group I had at the same spot on the roof as the Sigma.

2324

So, the second shot with the 100-400L is obviously back focused. Which is somewhat typical of my 100-400L. I always had issues AFMA'ing it as it had a real habit of oscillating between front focusing and back focusing. But I had a burst of 5 shots with the 100-400L here and all were mis-focused. Compared to the Sigma, same spot, same conditions, I had 7/8 shots in focus. Granted, that may just be the perk of 600 mm vs 400 mm.


Obviously, the 100-400L does nail focus. It is a great lens. But, I absolutely noticed a difference in my keeper rate yesterday whether I was shooting mailboxes, a dying rosebud, or small birds.

[Joel Eade]

The detail looks pretty good. I am surprised how much different the backgrounds look between the two lenses. Some of the shots even look like the color temp is different.

[neuroanatomist]

A keeper rate of ~30% with the 100-400L? Honestly, I'd send the lens to Canon. My experience with the lens across three bodies (7D, 5DII, 1D X), the keeper rates were >90%. The only time it struggled was with small birds in thickets (the 600 II locks onto them, but with the 2xIII it behaves like the 100-400 in those situations).

[HDNitehawk]

I suppose it depends on what you are considering a keeper. 30% sounds low but each of us have our own idea.
I go with John, maybe send the 400mm for service.

I am not impressed with the Sigma shots you posted. Sure they get you to 600mm but is it a good enough for what you want?
Then I was never impressed with the 100-400mm I had.

On your other thread you mentioned waiting on the new 100-400mm II. I think that is the best idea in this price range.
From Canon's past releases and MTF charts I would speculate that you will be far better off with the extenders on it.

[Kayaker72]

A keeper rate of ~30% with the 100-400L? Honestly, I'd send the lens to Canon. My experience with the lens across three bodies (7D, 5DII, 1D X), the keeper rates were >90%. The only time it struggled was with small birds in thickets (the 600 II locks onto them, but with the 2xIII it behaves like the 100-400 in those situations).

Much better performance with my 100-400L is my general experience as well. Considering it was a very brief shoot, and more of a pulling the Sigma out of the box and shooting the first things I see kind of test, I am impressed with the Sigma AF as same conditions, same settings it performed well where the 100-400L did not. But, the vast majority of the time, my 100-400L does very well. And while I still need to try tracking and a few other conditions, I would expect the same from the Sigma based on what I saw yesterday.


I suppose it depends on what you are considering a keeper. 30% sounds low but each of us have our own idea.
I go with John, maybe send the 400mm for service.

I am not impressed with the Sigma shots you posted. Sure they get you to 600mm but is it a good enough for what you want?
Then I was never impressed with the 100-400mm I had.

On your other thread you mentioned waiting on the new 100-400mm II. I think that is the best idea in this price range.
From Canon's past releases and MTF charts I would speculate that you will be far better off with the extenders on it.

Yep, 30% isn't typical. I think the 100-400L had issues hitting the small birds on a slanted roof at distance. Also, I was using 9 pt AF expansion, so I could have gone to single point AF mode to help. Admittedly, much of the issue could have been the "test" and is not meant to be a negative about the 100-400L, but a positive about the Sigma AF, which was one of my concerns.

Of course, the 100% crops weren't necessarily intended to be impressive. More to show how it was doing against the 100-400L. While I still need to do more tests, such as shooting at f/8-f/11 instead of "wide open" (which seems like a bit of a misnomer ;)), what I saw yesterday definitely has me thinking:

As you point out, would I be better off with superior optics at 400 mm? Both with and without extenders (i.e. would I be better off cropping an extremely sharp 400 mm image?).
While I am not sure what I expected, I can already seen the need to crop even with a 600 mm lens. If that is the case, maybe I am better off with a more portable 400 mm lens and working on closing the distance with the subjects.
I am also wondering if one of the benefits about "reach" isn't just pixels on target, but also AF. There is no doubt that another reason that the 100-400L may not have done as well yesterday is because each AF point was covering a larger area.


Anyway, my initial impressions are good. I will continue to test. As I don't think a 600 mm f/6.3 lens is necessarily my best option for indoor shots of a turkey, I doubt I'll have much more to post for awhile.

Happy Holidays everyone.....

[Kayaker72]

Ok...plans changed due to the storm hitting New Hampshire. I had a few minutes to look through some other photos I took yesterday. Not worthy of "Best Birds" thread, but here are a few that I actually processed in LR. The above photos had no editing done other than LR defaults.

5DIII, 150-600S, 1/1000, f/6.3, ISO 1600. This is still heavily cropped, ~1/9th of the frame, but not down to 100%.

2325

2326

Again, for comparison, the 100-400L @ 400. Same settings, 1/9th of the frame.

2327

Thanks...Brant

[Joel Eade]

I see these as showing very good plumage detail even on small birds which are small in the frame

[Anthony M]

I have to admit - I was ready to send back my recently received Tamron and wait for the Sigma Contemporary. I still see a lot of advantages to that lens as far as the Sigma TC's and the USB dock. Added to that, I wasn't getting particularly amazing results with the Tamron. I knew that shooting with a lens this size (especially handheld) is a whole new ball of wax - and I needed some patience. Indeed, after a week or so I started getting pretty good results - assuming the conditions were optimum. High ISO shots produced worse than usual results with my 6D. After careful micro adjustment however, the results I was getting were much, much better. Especially since I think I was getting some back focus - which seems to be a theme with any Tamron lens I've had.

The results I'm getting now are much better than I had hoped, so much so I think I'll go ahead and hang onto the lens. Small birds have been perfect practice as they don't hold still, but they're plentiful and right outside the house!

This was a few days ago, ISO 400, 600mm, f7.1 (which seems to be sharper than f8, even on charts), 1/200.
These are/were 100% 1:1 size crops (1600x1067) not sure what size they compress to in the html body here...
http://www.icophos.com/junk/IMG_1854.jpg
Then yesterday ISO 100, 600mm, f6.3, 1/650
http://www.icophos.com/junk/IMG_1936.jpg
and ISO 640
http://www.icophos.com/junk/IMG_1938.jpg

http://www.icophos.com/junk/IMG_1940.jpg

So, if this is as bad as it gets (600 and wide open) I'll call it a keeper! I'll be really interested on the Sigma Sport results. I really don't consider it to be competition for the Tamron - at least I would assume the lens' performance will be aimed at an entirely different crowd. That would mean much better AF speed and accuracy, and a better build. The Tamron is just ok in that regard, however the AF speed is much faster than my Tamron 70-300 for instance.

Since I think that the Contemporary is still being designed as I type this, it will be interesting just how much performance they give it (or can give it). They certainly don't want to cannibalize sales from the Sport, but at the same time need it to beat the Tamron. I have no doubt the build will be an improvement - at least it had better be!

[Dave Throgmartin]

Nice shots Anthony, the first one in particular is good. The Sigma shots look good too, Brant.

The 3rd party manufacturers are really bringing it with their super telephoto lenses. I may join the club and get the Tamron next year. It's great that quality super telephoto options are now here for the average hobby shooter who can't justify big bucks for the Canon big whites.

Dave

[Kayaker72]

I haven't had much time to shoot lately. But I did set up a second bird feeder that the Blue Jays seem to like and was able to get this shot.

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7557/15345010374_0c2deb1dec_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/pnZbYo)Small-3170-2 (https://flic.kr/p/pnZbYo) by kayaker72 (https://www.flickr.com/people/70039618@N08/), on Flickr

5DIII, 150-600S @ 600mm, 1/1000, f/8, ISO 1250. Still fairly heavily cropped (1822 x 2733 final image)

[Kayaker72]

A few more Blue Jays:

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7545/15355343673_0c16a534ba_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/poU9GH)A blue jay shot with the Sigma 150-600S (https://flic.kr/p/poU9GH) by kayaker72 (https://www.flickr.com/people/70039618@N08/), on Flickr

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7493/15352695564_e90dbae1c9_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/poEzvE)A blue jay shot with the Sigma 150-600S (https://flic.kr/p/poEzvE) by kayaker72 (https://www.flickr.com/people/70039618@N08/), on Flickr

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7474/15974951985_0e47e3e3e0_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/qkDNED)A blue jay shot with the Sigma 150-600S (https://flic.kr/p/qkDNED) by kayaker72 (https://www.flickr.com/people/70039618@N08/), on Flickr

"Original" files are on flickr. The first two are pretty heavily cropped (~2 MP). The third is about half the frame.

All are 5DIII, 150-600S @ 600, 1/1000, f/8. The first two are ISO 500 and the third ISO 2000. All are PP'd.

[Kayaker72]

So, I am off on a work/play trip. The work part will be in the LA area and then I am swinging back through Idaho to see family. I am going to take the 150-600S along with me. This will be the final test for it. Weather and wildlife permitting, I'll get to shoot eagles in Idaho and whatever I find near a beach in CA.

But, after a few times shooting rosebuds, mailboxes, birds around my house, and a few quick test chart shots these are my impressions:


600 mm...the focal length. It does not feel like as much reach as I had hoped for especially when downsizing samples to 1000 x 600 pixels, but it is noticeably more than 400 mm and is helping get shots. I say this as it is obvious, but at least I sometimes get caught up in "needing" longer focal lengths when much can be done with 400 mm or less focal lengths. The biggest difference I am noticing is that the reach helps with AF. I went back and tested the similar shots where I had trouble with the 100-400L and 150-600 @400 had similar focus issues.
I am pleased with the IQ coming off the 150-600S. It is sharper than my 100-400L but not as sharp at the 70-200 II. Generally, the bokeh is pleasing. There are a few issues, but generally good.
No issues to report with AF. Very good thus far.
The OS is legit 2-2.5 stops (I've had a few sharp photos taken at 600 mm 1/100).
Size weight. It is in an odd range. I am physically capable of hand holding it, even for extended periods of time. All of my shots have been hand held. I could go on hikes with it. But I would not necessarily enjoy the size and weight of the lens during those times. I am altering my thinking a bit to that this lens has crossed the line to join "Big Whites" that are typically going to be shot off of supports. It is a tweener, a bit small to "need" support but a bit big to just walk around with and enjoy it.


Thanks....Brant

[Dave Throgmartin]

Nice shots Brant. Real world shots can be tough! Controlled situation shots can really spoil you for clean backgrounds.

Dave

[Kayaker72]

Thanks Dave....so, still evaluating this lens. Last week.

I was rained out of eagles in Idaho, but I did make it to a NWR in Irvine, CA.

A few pics. All with the 5DIII, Sigma 150-600S @ 600 mm.


1/640, f/8, ISO 800
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7519/16030002882_64d1d21f17_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/qqvXo3)1L0A3538 (https://flic.kr/p/qqvXo3) by kayaker72 (https://www.flickr.com/people/70039618@N08/), on Flickr

1/500, f/7.1, ISO 800
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7510/15844934567_f89d8af5d8_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/q9ar22)1L0A3603 (https://flic.kr/p/q9ar22) by kayaker72 (https://www.flickr.com/people/70039618@N08/), on Flickr

This is uncropped with the original size loaded on Flickr. 1/500, f/7.1, ISO 800
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7470/16030678725_f83d4fe92e_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/qqzqhv)1L0A3612 (https://flic.kr/p/qqzqhv) by kayaker72 (https://www.flickr.com/people/70039618@N08/), on Flickr

[Kayaker72]

Ok. So I have to decide if I am keeping the 150-600S. Before seeing Bryan's results of the 100-400 II + 1.4TC, I had essentially decided to keep it. But the results at f/8 for the 100-400 II @ 560 mm (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0)were better than I had expected.

My situation: I am finding I am still cropping 600 mm shots and as much reach as possible is my primary intent. So what I am looking for is the best ability to capture high quality images at as long of focal lengths as possible for around $2k (I won't know my actual budget until tax returns, but I usually can get $2k).

I've been pleased with the IQ and AF of the Sigma. I didn't post them, but it did track well in a few BIF situations.

As I see it:
Sigma 150-600S
Pros:

Native 600 mm
Within budget
Good IQ
Good AF
Good reviews thus far (lenstip (http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=417), photoblog (http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/sigma_150_600mm_f5_6_3_dg_os_hsm_sports_review/), cameralabs (http://cameralabs.com/reviews/Sigma_150-600mm_f5-6-3_DG_OS_HSM_Sport/), etc)
2/3 stop at 600 mm
Reports (http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54798110) of Sigma AFing (http://www.kruger-2-kalahari.com/sigma-150-600mm-lens-review.html) with 1.4xTC giving a 840 f/9 lens.


Cons:

Size/weight
Long term concerns about 3rd party lenses/AF


100-400 II plus 1.4xTC
Pros

Size/weight
IS
MFD
"Canon" AF/Quality
77 mm thread size
White with red ring just looks good
Already seeing images like this (http://livingwilderness.photoshelter.com/image/I0000Kbwo9Xyw6r8).


Cons


$~700 more expensive (lens plus extender)
AF speed with extender???
AF at f/8 on 5D3 limited
Overlap in range with my existing kit (70-200 II)
Not sure, but IQ at 560mm??


I should emphasize, I am willing to put up with size weight issues to "get the shot"

Thanks
Brant

[Kayaker72]

I bought the Sigma 1.4x TC to try with the 150-600S right before my trip to Florida.

It does impact IQ and AF...but, I can see using it in certain instances.

Canon 5DIII, Sigma 150-600S with Sigma 1.4xTC, @ 840 mm, 1/1260, f/11, ISO 1600

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7297/16255369420_f4272f130b_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/qLr211)small-5044 (https://flic.kr/p/qLr211) by kayaker72 (https://www.flickr.com/people/70039618@N08/), on Flickr

[Haydn1971]

Brant, could you confirm if the Sigma actually has AF when using the 1.4x extender on a camera that AF's to f5.6 ? (i.e. not the 1Dx or 5D3) as I've read conflicting comments on this.

[Kayaker72]

I can confirm that the 150-600S AFs very well and the 150-600S + 1.4xTC (sigma's) AFs reasonably well on the on the 5DIII.

I'll try it on my 7D or EOS-M and will get back to you. But, I've actually lent the 150-600S out and will be on vacation next week, so it will have to wait a week or two.

[Haydn1971]

That's OK, I'm in no real rush to drop £1500 on a lens just yet ;-)

[Falstaff]

I was lucky enough to receive my Sigma 150-600 lens last week. I've been very impressed with the picture quality of it paired with my Canon 7DMKII. Yes, it's big and heavy, but with my Blackrapid Sport sling, it is surprisingly easy to spend several hours walking around the zoo. A monopod helps, but even handheld I'm getting good results--which speaks well of the optical stabilization. Weather sealing is important to me. In July I'm going on safari in Africa and am told it can get very dusty, so I'd hate the build quality of my 7DMKII to go to waste. The lens and camera with battery grip fit perfectly into a Thinktank Glass Taxi. As far as I can tell, the lens is sharp, the autofocus fast, and the build quality is simply amazing. I'm in love. Sorry, wife.

[jamsus]

i'm in love. Sorry, wife.

;) ;) ;)

[Kayaker72]

Congrats on the lens!

[Kayaker72]

Finally the comparison I've been waiting for (Thanks Bryan)....

150-600S @ 600 vs 100-400 II @ 560 mm f/8 (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=978&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=2&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=1)

I give the center to the Sigma and the edges to the 100-400 II. I am actually very impressed with how good the 100-400 II is with a 1.4x TC.


And a few others:
150-500S @ 500 mm vs 100-400 II @560 f/8 (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=978&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=6&API=2&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2)


150-600S @ 600 mm vs 100-400 I @ 560 mm f/8 (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=978&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=2&LensComp=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=10&APIComp=0)


150-600S vs Tamron 150-600 @ 600 mm f/8 (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=978&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=2&LensComp=929&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2)

Probably, at some point, I'll figure out how to try the 100-400II +1.4tc vs the Sigma side by side. Evaluate IQ, IS, AF, bokeh, size and weight. But for now, I'll keep shooting with the Sigma. For my kit, I am really looking for something for as much reach as possible within my price range.

[Dave Throgmartin]

Probably, at some point, I'll figure out how to try the 100-400II +1.4tc vs the Sigma side by side. Evaluate IQ, IS, AF, bokeh, size and weight. But for now, I'll keep shooting with the Sigma. For my kit, I am really looking for something for as much reach as possible within my price range.

IMHO, just shoot with it. If it delivers the goods then enjoy it. If it doesn't then flip it and get something else.

Dave

[Kayaker72]

IMHO, just shoot with it. If it delivers the goods then enjoy it. If it doesn't then flip it and get something else.

Dave

Thanks Dave. That, of course, is the plan, enjoy what you have and shoot until you identify a need. I am not usually an early adopter, so, in a way, I am just going back and making my normal assessments after the fact to make sure I have the lens that best fits my kit and understanding the pros/cons of my lenses.

For example, for any of those interested, I've also played with the "actual" focal lengths based on Bryan's reported distance to his target on the spec page.

Sigma:
@400 mm = 405
@500 mm = 494
@600 mm = 575

100-400II:
@400 mm = 392
@560 mm = 532